Ball Security Analysis

[thefuzz]

1 hour ago, Moo Daeng said:

I think the main difference is that the biggest strongest and most athletic generally would prefer defensive line 

I think there is some of that going on for sure....QB's are getting better about getting the ball out quicker, and offense has been propped up by the rule changes...you need the complete freaks to play DT and DE.

But as @Snake mentioned, it's also the change in the college game.  It's easier to win with gimmick offenses in college, those require a completely different skill set to operate in than a traditional offense.

 

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

2 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

If you really want to believe there's a narrative, I'm sure you'll find one whether there actually is or not. That's typically how paranoia works.

In reality though, there isn't one.That's why the opening post says "What does it mean? You tell me."

I did the research for the same reason I do just about any research, I was curious. In this case, my particular curiosity had to do with the ball security of rookie and second year quarterbacks. I used examples with a broad range of success level for balance.

That's pretty much all there is to it

Ok.  I will tell you what it means.

Absolutely nothing.

To be fair, the opening post also says "Ball Security Analysis".  I guess I misunderstood that.  You were looking for others to do the analysis, instead of providing any.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

Ok.  I will tell you what it means.

Absolutely nothing.

To be fair, the opening post also says "Ball Security Analysis".  I guess I misunderstood that.  You were looking for others to do the analysis, instead of providing any.

Actually, I'd say what it means is that a lot of guys have ball security issues starting out. Some of them improve on it. Others don't.

And again, this is why projecting with a young quarterback is faulty.

it assumes that nothing is going to change.

In reality, many young quarterbacks grow and improve with time. Others show they're not up to it. But what pretty much none of them do is look exactly the same as they gain more experience.

That's my take, that he's still largely an unknown.

You're pouting because you want to be able to say "We absolutely know who Kyle Allen is and is always going to be based on his first four games". However, if you looked back at what people said after the first four games of all of the guys listed (and others) you'd have seen a lot of different opinions, and a pretty solid percentage of them being wrong.

So no, we don't know who Kyle Allen is yet. Even Kyle Allen doesn't know who Kyle Allen is yet. He's still finding out, and thus, so are we.

People who are predicting either good things or bad things may be right or wrong, but either way they're really just guessing.

Some people's guesses are better than others. We'll see whose...

And again, as to the thread, there are plenty of times when I do my own analysis. Other times, I prefer to throw something out and let people discuss it themselves without pointing the discussion in a certain direction.

In other words, no agenda.

[SBiii]

7 hours ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

I guess I was thrown off by the title, which literally states an opinion will be given.

You weren't "thrown off" by anything pal, stop with the fg BS...

...you were trolling (and whining) because you wanted to try to pigeonhole the OP (and myself) over the word "analysis"...

...period --- own it bud.

You expressed a keen interest in some analysis, whadya say we discuss the table I presented?  Any thoughts there?

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

26 minutes ago, SBiii said:

You weren't "thrown off" by anything pal, stop with the fg BS...

...you were trolling (and whining) because you wanted to try to pigeonhole the OP (and myself) over the word "analysis"...

...period --- own it bud.

You expressed a keen interest in some analysis, whadya say we discuss the table I presented?  Any thoughts there?

I gave you my thoughts on your "analysis".  Which lets be clear here.  You weren't really analyzing anything.  You made up stats for Allen to push a narrative that his fumble-itis falls in the normal range of QBs.

Trying to project any stats from Allen is considered faulty.  Which means trying to draw a conclusion based on his projected stats is a faulty conclusion.  Which makes it useless.

And as for "pigionhole" anyone?  Sorry if I figure words have definitions.  My bad for owning a dictionary.

[SBiii]

58 minutes ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

(i)  I gave you my thoughts on your "analysis".  Which lets be clear here.  You weren't really analyzing anything.  You made up stats for Allen to push a narrative that his fumble-itis falls in the normal range of QBs.

(ii)  Trying to project any stats from Allen is considered faulty.  Which means trying to draw a conclusion based on his projected stats is a faulty conclusion.  Which makes it useless.

(iii)  And as for "pigionhole" anyone?  Sorry if I figure words have definitions.  My bad for owning a dictionary.

(i)  Totally false.  You gave no thoughts on anything. 

(ii)  Totally false again.  Projecting stats is done all-day every-day as it goes to sports both amateur and professional....hence a $billions+ $dollar global sports betting industry.  (then again, you're the guy who can't get to church without a cop helping you cross the street)

(iii)  Clearly you are lying about owning a dictionary (either that or you bought a fake)..... "pigionhole".....?!?

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

1 hour ago, SBiii said:

(ii)  Totally false again.  Projecting stats is done all-day every-day as it goes to sports both amateur and professional....hence a $billions+ $dollar global sports betting industry.  (then again, you're the guy who can't get to church without a cop helping you cross the street)

Clearly you aren't following along in this thread.  The OP clearly stated multiple times that he wasn't a fan of any projection concerning Allen's stats.  So I am trying to frame my responses within the scope of what the OP is looking for.  

As I see you are unable to participate in this discussion without insulting me, actually bringing a point to the table, or even reading the posts.  I will just bow out.  Have a great day.

Your entire response was catching me in a typo, ignoring posts in this thread, and just not saying anything.  Clearly just time for me to move on.

[SBiii]

34 minutes ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

Clearly you aren't following along in this thread.  The OP clearly stated multiple times that he wasn't a fan of any projection concerning Allen's stats.  So I am trying to frame my responses within the scope of what the OP is looking for.  

As I see you are unable to participate in this discussion without insulting me, actually bringing a point to the table, or even reading the posts.  I will just bow out.  Have a great day.

Your entire response was catching me in a typo, ignoring posts in this thread, and just not saying anything.  Clearly just time for me to move on.

For a change you are spot-on....time for you to move on from your trolling and gotcha tactics. 

Cheers mate.

PS...careful on Sunday there pal, wait for the crossing guard.

[iamhubby1]

1 hour ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

Clearly you aren't following along in this thread.  The OP clearly stated multiple times that he wasn't a fan of any projection concerning Allen's stats.  So I am trying to frame my responses within the scope of what the OP is looking for.  

As I see you are unable to participate in this discussion without insulting me, actually bringing a point to the table, or even reading the posts.  I will just bow out.  Have a great day.

Your entire response was catching me in a typo, ignoring posts in this thread, and just not saying anything.  Clearly just time for me to move on.

 

    Not going to lie. I thought you might bow out after his first three replies. You obviously have more patience than me. 

[Varking]

11 hours ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

    Not going to lie. I thought you might bow out after his first three replies. You obviously have more patience than me. 

SBiii can be a pretty cool dude around here when he wants to be. In threads like this though he tends to latch onto being a douche and can't let it go. Eventually you just stop replying to the guy and you have to treat each thread as if he is a different person each time. 

[iamhubby1]

58 minutes ago, Varking said:

SBiii can be a pretty cool dude around here when he wants to be. In threads like this though he tends to latch onto being a douche and can't let it go. Eventually you just stop replying to the guy and you have to treat each thread as if he is a different person each time. 

 

    I have 2 brothers in law who are like that. They not only think they are the smartest person in the room, but also, everything they say is pure gold.

 

    Needless to say. It is rather abrasive.